Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions

Line 70:

::: Yeah. We're currently proposing a more extensive streamlining of the septimal meantone strong extensions as well because many extensions include mappings of different primes with incompatible tuning tendencies. I don't believe this would be applied more generally; meantone extensions are a somewhat extreme case in terms of clutter, and doing this would help illuminate what actually useful extensions are there in different tuning subranges of meantone. But these extensions will continue to reach the 19-limit. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: Fair enough. And while we're on the subject of streamlining, I would recommend a reorganization so that the main article starts with 5-limit Meantone (and its tuning spectrum table either reflects this or also includes the other major 7-limit extensions), and Septimal Meantone is moved to its own article like Flattone, Dominant, etc. (also getting its own tuning spectrum table if the tuning spectrum tables are not all merged). I can think of pros and cons for merged and separate tuning spectrum tables. But since past historical use of Meantone ''usually'' didn't pay much attention to septimal intervals, putting Septimal Meantone ahead of all of the others might not be the best way to organize things, given that modern use (which eventually will also be historical, and arguably already is for the early-to-mid 20th Century) has usage of Dominant being, um, dominant. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:38, 26 March 2025 view source Lériendil (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Sysops 7,596 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:15, 26 March 2025 view source Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk \| contribs) 1,167 edits →Stuff above 19-limit deleted: Streamlining --> reorganization? Newer edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:

	::: Yeah. We're currently proposing a more extensive streamlining of the septimal meantone strong extensions as well because many extensions include mappings of different primes with incompatible tuning tendencies. I don't believe this would be applied more generally; meantone extensions are a somewhat extreme case in terms of clutter, and doing this would help illuminate what actually useful extensions are there in different tuning subranges of meantone. But these extensions will continue to reach the 19-limit. --[[User:Lériendil\|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil\|talk]]) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)		::: Yeah. We're currently proposing a more extensive streamlining of the septimal meantone strong extensions as well because many extensions include mappings of different primes with incompatible tuning tendencies. I don't believe this would be applied more generally; meantone extensions are a somewhat extreme case in terms of clutter, and doing this would help illuminate what actually useful extensions are there in different tuning subranges of meantone. But these extensions will continue to reach the 19-limit. --[[User:Lériendil\|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil\|talk]]) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

			:::: Fair enough. And while we're on the subject of streamlining, I would recommend a reorganization so that the main article starts with 5-limit Meantone (and its tuning spectrum table either reflects this or also includes the other major 7-limit extensions), and Septimal Meantone is moved to its own article like Flattone, Dominant, etc. (also getting its own tuning spectrum table if the tuning spectrum tables are not all merged). I can think of pros and cons for merged and separate tuning spectrum tables. But since past historical use of Meantone ''usually'' didn't pay much attention to septimal intervals, putting Septimal Meantone ahead of all of the others might not be the best way to organize things, given that modern use (which eventually will also be historical, and arguably already is for the early-to-mid 20th Century) has usage of Dominant being, um, dominant. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio\|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio\|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)